Citation network
Clement Vs. Packer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 19, 1888
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 309 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Clement v. PackerSearch
-
U.S. 309 (1888) Clement v. PackerSearch
-
which declarations were made to the witness in, pointing out that locality, are admissible in evidence. Hunnicutt v. PeytonSearch
-
U. S. 333 , and Ellicott v. PearlSearch
-
nature is capable of being proved by the testimony of a person who speaks from his own knowledge. In The Mima Queen v. HepburnSearch
-
the American state court as justified upon grounds as strong as those on which the original rule rests. In Boardman v. LesseesSearch
-
of the declarations of deceased surveyors in cases of boundaries between private estates. In the case of Caufman v. CongregationSearch
-
In Kennedy v. LuboldSearch
-
In Kramer v. GoodlanderSearch
-
In McCausland v. FlemingSearch
-
of hearsay evidence in respect to boundaries were fully considered in the circuit court of the United States. Conn v. PennSearch
-
counsel for defendant in error also seem to us in harmony with the tenor and effect of them. The case of Bender v. PitzerSearch
-
Caufman v. CongregationSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Hamilton v. MenorSearch
-
the rejection of the evidence, much reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Hunnicutt v. PeytonSearch
-
which the court allowed to be given in evidence. There was no such proof aliunde. The case of Ellicott v. PearlSearch
-
estate. In so doing, this Court was simply enforcing the rule as it existed in Kentucky at that time. In Cherry v. BoydSearch
-
This being the settled law of Kentucky, this Court could not have decided otherwise than it did in Ellicott v. PearlSearch
-
to each and every tract of the block, as much as they do to the particular tract which they adjoin. In Pruner v. BrisbinSearch
-
Penn.St. 210. In Fritz v. BrandonSearch
-
together in a single block by exterior lines, leaving the interior lines to be settled by the owner himself. Mock v. AstleySearch
-
Stevens v. HughesSearch
-
Collins v. BarclaySearch
-
Hagerty v. MathersSearch
-
St. 348. The legal effect is that the entire block is viewed as one tract. Hence, Chief Justice Lewis said, in Hole v. RittenhouseSearch
-
This principle was in the mind of Chief Justice Woodward when he said, in Malone v. SalladaSearch
-
remember that the marks on any part of the block belong to each tract in the block.' So Judge Strong said, in Darrah v. BryantSearch
-
In Malone v. SalladaSearch
-
In Northumberland Coal Co. v. ClementSearch
-
are of the opinion that he was in direct conflict with the rule laid down by the Pennsylvania courts. In Clement v. NorthumberlandSearch
-
finds that certain trees relied on by the defendant bore certain marks. In the case of Northumberland Coal Co. v ClementSearch
-
in view of the general concurrence of authorities in the principle therein laid down. See Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. KunkelSearch
-
Leg.Int. 339. See also Sweigart v. RichardsSearch
-
Bellas v. CleaverSearch
-
especially relied on to sustain this assertion, but much to confirm the authority of the rule. The brief cites Pruner v. BrisbinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Clement v. PackerSearch
-
and Ellicott v. PearlSearch
-
In The Mima Queen v. HepburnSearch
-
In Boardman v. LesseesSearch
-
of Caufman v. CongregationSearch
-
of the United States. Conn v. PennSearch
-
of Bender v. PitzerSearch
-
of Hunnicutt v. PeytonSearch
-
of Ellicott v. PearlSearch
-
In Cherry v. BoydSearch
-
In Pruner v. BrisbinSearch
-
In Fritz v. BrandonSearch
-
Mock v. AstleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial